







»-<''* ^^'^ ... ^-^^ 






-^ 
«<•' 



■ .'1^% -f 



i^ ./■ 



"> • » ^* 



."^Mf/y^ 






.0^^ 




•* aO- 












* e> I, o ' A> 






^0■' 




\>* • * • « 






^0 









^ .^^-^^^ 



:*^ .0 






;*" ^"^ -^^ "oW^* / "^^ •- _^ . 






"vt-o^ 




'oK 



^^0^ 



:rL% V 



,J> * N O ' ^ 










% ^^ ^^ " *>"%^/>:<- *^^^ ^c,'^."*' *^fS«^'. ^^ ^^ ' .: 






^0^9- 























V ^V^ffi^.', "^^^^ oV^ffll- •**^<'^ 















•*;-^*' 











". ^^o^ »*, 




^oV" 



^^•n^ 











•1<55:^^'- o .^^ 








9. 



PROCLAMATION 



o:-' 



~y 



1 



PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 



PEOPIiK OF SOSTTH CAKOlil'NA, 



DECEMBER 10, 1«8;2. 



, IOC.' 4/^ ^vj 



I 



^ 



M. J.%, V^ V> JL^ X i-XTJ. Xi. .B. 



OF 



ANDREW JACKSON, 



PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 



TO THE 



/ 



PEOPLE OE SOUTH CAEOLINA 



DECEMBER 10, 1833. 



Uv^•:re i SirxtevT^e<ae.vx^, \^ ^.-b -Xj^Jj^pJ^M!^^ 




HARRISBUKG: 

A. BOYD HAMILTON, STATE PRINTER, 

1862. 



PROCLAMATION. 



Whereas, A convention assembled in the State of South Carolina, have 
passed an ordinance by which they declare, " That the several acts and parts 
of acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting' to be laws for the 
imposing of duties and imposts on the importation of foreign commodities, 
and now having actual operation and effect within the United States, and more 
especially" two acts, for the same purposes, passed on the 29th of May, 1828, 
and on the Hth of July, 1832, "are unauthorized by the Constitution of the 
United States, and violate the true meaning and intent thereof, and are null 
and void, and no law," nor binding on the citizens of that State or its officers ; 
and by the said ordinance it is further declared to be unlawful for any of the 
constituted authorities of the State, or of the United States, to enforce the 
payment of the duties imposed by the said acts within the same State, and 
that it is the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary 
to give full effect to the said ordinance: 

Jind whereas, By the said ordinance it is further ordained, that, in no case 
of law or equity decided in the courts of said State, wherein shall be drawn 
in question the validity of the said ordinance, or of the acts of the Legislature 
that may be passed to give it effect, or of the said laws of the United States, no 
appeal shall be allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States, nor shall 
any copy of the record be permitted or allowed for that purpose; and that 
any person attempting to take such appeal shall be punished as for a con- 
tempt of court. 

And, finally, the said ordinance declares that the people of South Carolina 
will maintain the said ordinance at every hazard, and that they will consider 
the passage of any act by Congress abolishing or closing the ports of the said 
State, or otherwise obstructing the free ingress or egress of vessels to and 
from the said ports, or any other act of the federal government to coerce the 
State, shut up her ports, destroy or harrass her commerce, or to enforce the 
said acts otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the country, as incon- 
sistent with the longer continuance of South Carolina in the Union; and that 
the people of the said State will thenceforth hold themselves absolved from all 
further obligation to maintain or preserve their political connection with the 
people of the other States, and will forthwith proceed to organize a separate 
government, and do all other acts and things which sovereign and independent 
States may of right do : 

^nd whereas, The said ordinance prescribes to the people of South Carolina 
a course of conduct in direct violation of their duty as citizens of the United 
States, contrary to the laws of their country, subversive of its Constitution, 
and having for its object the destruction of the Union — that Union which, 



coevil with our political existence, led our fathers, without any other ties to 
unite them than those of patriotisnn and a common cause, through a sanguinary- 
struggle to a glorious independence — that sacred Union, hitherto inviolate, 
which, perfected by our happy Constitution, has brought us, by the favor of 
Heaven, to a state of prosperity at home and high consideration abroad, rarely, 
if ever, equalled in the history of nations. To preserve this bond of our po- 
litical existence from destruction, to maintain inviolate this state of national 
honor and prosperity, and to justify the confidence my fellow-citizens have 
reposed in me, I, Andrew Jackson, President of the United States, have 
thought proper to isssue this, my proclamation, stating my. views of the Con- 
stitution and laws applicable to the measures adopted by the convention of 
South Carolina, and to the reasons they have put forth to sustain them, declar- 
ing the course which duty will require me to pursue, and, appealing to the un- 
derstanding and patriotism of the people, warn them of the consequences 
that must inevitably result from an observance of the dictates of the conven- 
tion. Strict duty would require of me nothing more than the exercise of 
those powers with which I am now or may hereafter be invested, for pre- 
serving the peace of the Union, and for the execution of the laws. But the im- 
posing aspect which opposition has assui'ned in this case, by clothing itself 
with State authority, and the deep interest which the people of the United 
States must all feel in preventing a resort to stronger measures, while there 
is a hope that anything will be yielded to reasoning and remonstrance, per- 
haps demand, and will certainly justify, a full exposition, to South Carolina 
and the nation, of the views I entertain of this important question, as well 
as a distinct enunciation of the course which my sense of duty will require 
me to pursue. 

The ordinance is founded, not on the indefeasible right of resisting acts 
which are plainly unconstitutional and too oppressive to be endured, but on the 
strange position that any one State may not only declare an act of Congress 
void, but prohibit its execution — that they may do this consistently with the 
Constitution — that the true construction of that instrument permits a State 
to retain its place in the Union, and yet be bound by no other of its laws 
than those it may choose to consider as constitutional. It is true, they add, 
that, to justify this abrogation of a law, it must be palpably contrary to the 
Constitution ; but it is evident that to give the right of resisting laws of that 
description, coupled with the uncontrolled right to decide what laws deserve 
that character, is to give the power of resisting all laws. For, as by the 
theory there is no appeal, the reasons alleged by the State, good or bad, must 
prevail. If it should be said that public opinion is a sufficient check against 
the abuse of this power, it may be asked why it is not deemed a sufficient 
guard against the passage of an unconstitutional act by Congress. There is, 
however, a restraint in this last case, which makes the assumed power of a 
State more indefensible, and which does not exist in the other. There are 
two appeals from an unconstitutional act passed by Congress — one to the 
judiciary, the other to the people and the States. There is no appeal from 
the State decision in theory ; and the practical illustration shows that the 
courts are closed against an application to review it, both judges and jurors 
being sworn to decide in its favor. But reasoning on this subject is super- 
fluous when our social compact in express terms declares that the laws of 
the United States, its Constitution, and treaties made under it, are the supreme 
law of the land; and for greater caution, adds: "that the judges in every 
State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any 
State to the contrary notwithstanding." And it may be asserted, without 
fear of refutation, that no federative government could exist without a simi- 
lar provision. Look for a moment to the consequences. If South Carolina 



considers the revenue laws unconstitutional, and has a right to prevent their 
execution in the port of Charleston, there would be a clear constitutional 
objection to their collection in every other port, and no revenue could be col- 
lected anjnvhere, for all imposts must be equal. It is no answer to repeat 
that an unconstitutional law is no law, so long as the question of its legality is 
to be decided by the State itself; for every law operating injuriously upon 
any local interest will be, perhaps, thought and certainly represented as un- 
constitutional, and, as has been shown, there is no appeal. 

If this doctrine had been established at an earlier day, the Union would 
have been dissolved in its infancy. The excise law in Pennsylvania, the 
embargo and non-intercouse law in the eastern States, the carriage tax in 
V^irginia, were all deemed unconstitutional, and were more unequal in their 
operation than any of the laws now complained of; but fortunately none of 
those States discovered that they had the right now claimed by South Caro- 
lina. The war into which we were forced to support the dignity of the 
nation and the rights of our citizens, might have ended in defeat and dis- 
grace, instead of victory and honor, if the States who supposed it a ruinous 
and unconstit\itional measure, had thought they possessed the right of nulli- 
fying the act by which it was declared, and denying supplies for its prosecu- 
tion. Hardly and unequally as those measures bore upon several members 
of the Union, to the Legislatures of none did this efficient and peaceable 
remedy, as it is called, suggest itself. The discovery of this important 
feature in our Constitution was preserved to the present day. To the slates- 
men of South Carolina belongs the invention, and upon the citizens of thcet 
State will unfortunately fall the evils of reducing it to practice. 

If the doctrine of a State veto upon the laws of the Union carries with it 
internal evidence of its impracticable absurdity, our constitutional history 
will also afford abundant proof that it would have been repudiated with in- 
dignation had it been proposed to form a feature in our government. 

in our colonial state, although dependent on another power, we very early 
considered ourselves as connected by common interest with each other. 
Leagues were formed for common defence, and before tbs declaration of in- 
dependence, we were known in our aggregate character as the United Colo- 
nies OF America, That decisire and important step was taken jointly^ We 
declared ourselves a nation by a joints not by several acts ^ and when the 
terms of our confederation were reduced to form, it was in that of a solemn 
league of several States, by which they agreed that they would, collectively, 
form one nation for the purpose of conducting some certain domestic con- 
cerns, and all foreign relations. In the instrument forming that Union, is 
found an article which declares that "every State shall abide by the deter- 
minations of Congress on all questions which by that confederation should 
be siibinitted to them." 

Under the confederation, then, no State could legally annul a decision of 
Congress, or refuse to submit to its execution ; but no provision was made to 
enforce these decisions. Congress made requsitions, but they were not com- 
plied with. The government could not operate on individuals. They had 
no judiciarj', no means of collecting revenues. 

But the defects of the confeder;ition need not be detailed. Under its 
operation we could scarcely be called a nation. We had neither prosperity 
at home nor consideration abroad. This state of things could not be en- 
dured, and our present happy Constitution was formed, but formed in vain, 
if this fatal doctrine prevails. It was formed for important objects that are 
announced in the preamble, made in the name and by the authority of the people 
of the United States, whose delegates framed, and whose conventions approved 
it. The most important among these objects, that which is placed first in rank, 



on which all the others rest, is " to form a more perfect Union." Now, is it 
possible, that even if there were no express provision givino supremacy to the 
Constitution and laws of the United States over those of the States, it can be 
conceived, that an instrument made for the purpose of " forming a more per- 
fect Union" than that of the confederation, could be so constru^ed by the as- 
sembled wisdom of our country, as to substitute for that confederation a form 
of government dependent for its existence on the local interest, the party 
spirit of a State, or of a prevailing faction in a State 1 Every man of plain, 
unsophisticated understanding, who hears the question, will give such an 
answer as will preserve the Union. Metaphysical subtlety in pursuit of an 
impracticable theory, could alone have devised one that is calculated to de- 
stroy it. 

I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed 
by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted ex- 
pressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, incon- 
sistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the 
great object for which it was formed. 

After this general view of the leading principle, we must examine the par- 
ticular application of it which is made in the ordinance. 

The preamble rests its justification on these grounds : It assumes as a fact, 
that the obnoxious laws, although they purport to be laws for raising revenue' 
were, in reality, intended for the protection of manufactures, which purpose 
it asserts to be unconstitutional— that the operation of these laws is une- 
qual — that the amount raised by them is greater than is required by the 
wants of the government— and finally, that the proceeds are to be applied to 
objects unauthorized by the Constitution. These are the only causes alleged 
to justify an open opposition to the laws of the country, and a threat of °se- 
ceding from the Union, if any attempt should be made to enforce them. The 
first virtually acknowledges that the law in question was passed under a 
power expressly given by the Constitution, to lay and collect imposts; but 
its constitutionality is drawn in question from the motives of those who 
passed it. However apparent this purpose may be in the present case, nothing 
can be more dangerous than to admit the position, that an unconstitutional 
purpose, entertained by the members who assent to a law enacted under a 
constitutional power, shall make that law void ; for how is that purpose to 
be ascertained ? Who is to make the scrutiny ? How often may bad pur- 
poses be falsely imputed 1 In how many cases are they concealed by false 
professions! In how many is no declaration of motive made 1 Admit this 
doctrine, and you give to the States an uncontrolled right to decide, and 
every law may be annulled under this pretext. If, therefore, the absurd and 
dangerous doctrine should be admitted that a State may annul an unconsti- 
tutional law, or one that it deems such, it will not apply to the present case.. 

The next objection is, that the laws in question operate unequally. This 
objection may be made with truth, to every law that has been or can be passed. 
The wisdom of man never yet contrived a system of taxation that would 
operate with perfect equality. If the unequal operation of a law makes it 
unconstitutional, and if all laws of that description may be abrogated by any 
State for that cause, then indeed is the Federal Constitution unworthy of the 
slightest efibrt for its preservation. We have hitherto relied on it as the 
perpetual bond of our Union. We have received it as the work of the as- 
sembled wisdom of the nation. We have trusted to it as to the sheet anchor 
of our safety, in the stormy times of conflict with a foreign or domestic foe. 
We have looked to it with sacred awe, as the palladium of our liberties, and 
with all the solemnities of religion, have pledged to each other our lives and 
fortunes here, and our hopes of happiness hereafter in its defence and sup- 



port. Were we mistaken, my countrymen, in attaching this importance to 
the Constitution of our country 1 Was our devotion paid to the wretched, 
inefficient, clumsy contrivance wliich this new doctrine would make it 1 Did 
we pledge ourselves to the support of an airy nothing — a bubble that must be 
blown away by the first breath of disaffection 1 Was this self-destroying, 
visionary theory, the work of the profound statesmen, the exalted patriots to 
whom the task of constitutional reform was intrusted ? Did the name of 
Washington sanction, did the States deliberately ratify such an anomoly in 
the history of fundamental legislation 1 No. We were not mistaken ! 'The 
letter of this great instrument is free from this radical fault; its language 
directly contradicts the imputation ; its spirit — its evident intent — contradicts 
it. No, we did not err! Uur Constitution does not contain the absurdity of 
giving power to make laws, and another power to resist them. The sages, 
whose memory will always be reverenced, have given us a practical, and as 
they hoped, a permanent constitutional compact. The father of his country 
did not affix his revered name to so palpable an absurdity. Nor did the States, 
when they severally ratified it, do so under the impression, that a veto on 
the laws of the United States was reserved to them, or that they could exercise 
it by implication. Search the debates of all their conventions — examine the 
speeches of the most zealous opposers of federal authority — look at the 
amendments that were proposed. They are all silent — not a syllable uttered, 
not a vote given, not a motion made to correct the explicit supremacy given 
to the laws of the Union over those of the States — or to show that implica- 
tion as is now contended, could defeat it. No, we have not erred ! The 
Constitution is still the object of our reverence, the bond of our Union, our 
defence in danger, the source of our prosperity and peace. It shall descend 
as we have received it, uncorrupted by sophistical construction to our pos- 
terity ; and the sacrifices of local interests, of State prejudices, of personal 
animosities, that were made to bring it into existence, will again be patri- 
otically offered for its support. 

The two remaining objections, made by the ordinance to these laws, are, 
that the sums intended to be raised by them, are greater than are required, 
and that the proceeds will be unconstitutionally employed. The Constitu- 
tion has expressly given to Congress the right of raising revenue, and of 
determining the sum the public exigences will require. The States have no 
control over the exercise of this right, other than that which results from the 
power of changing the representatives who abuse it, and thus procure redress. 

Congress may, undoubtedly, abuse this discretionary power, but the same 
may be said of others with which they are vested. Yet the discretion tuust 
exist somewhere. The Constitution has given it to the representatives of all the 
people, checked by the representatives of the States, and by the executive 
power. The South CaroUna construction gives it to the Legislature, or the 
convention of a single State; where neither the people of the different States, 
nor the States in their separate capacity, nor the chief magistrate, elected by 
the people, have any representation. Which is the most discreet disposition 
of the power 1 I do not ask you, fellow-citizens, which is the constitutional 
disposition — that instrument speaks a language not to be misunderstood. 
But if you were assembled in general convention, which would you think 
the safest depository of this discretionary power, in the last resort! Would 
you add a clause, giving it to each of the States; or would you sanction the 
wise provisions already made by your Constitution ] If this should be the 
result of your deliberations, when, providing for the future, are you — can 
you be — ready to risk ail ^lat you hold dear, to establish, for a temporary 
and local purpose, that which you must acknowledge to be destructive, and 
even absurd, as a general provision ] Carry out the consequences of this 



right vested in the different States, and you must perceive that the crisig 
your conduct presents at this day, would recur whenever any law of the 
LTnited States displeased any of the States, and that we should soon cease to 
be a nation. 

The ordinance, with the same knowledge of the future that characterizes a 
former objection, tells you that the proceeds of the tax will be unconstitu- 
tionally applied. If this could be ascertained with certainty, the objection 
would, with more propriety, be reserved for the law so applying the proceeds, 
but surely cannot be urged against the laws levying the duty. 

These are the allegations contained in the ordinance. Examine them serious- 
ly, my fellow-citizens — ^judge for yourselves. 1 appeal to you to determine 
whether they are so clear, so convincing, as to leave no doubt of their correct- 
ness ; and even if you should come to this conclusion, how far they justify 
the reckless, destructive course, which you are directed to pursue. Review 
these objections, and the conclusions drawn from them once more. What 
are they I Every law, then, for raising revenue, according to the South 
Carolina ordinance, may be rightfully annulled, unless it be so framed as no 
lav/ ever will or can be framed. Congress has a right to pass laws for 
raising revenue, and each State has a right to oppose their execution — two 
rights directly opposed to each other 5 and yet is this absurdity, supposed to 
be contained in an instrument drawn for the express purpose of avoiding col- 
lisions between the States and the general government, by an assembly of 
the most enlightened statesmen and purest patriots ever embodied for a similar 
purpose. 

in vain have these sages declared that Congress shall have power to lay and 
collect taxes, duties, imposts and excise — in vain have they provided that they 
shall have power to pass laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry 
those powers into execution ; that those laws and that Constitution shall be 
the "supreme law of the land; and that the judges in every State shall be 
bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the 
contrary notwithstanding.*' lu vain have the people of the several States 
solemnly sanctioned these provisions, made them their paramount law, and 
individually sworn to support them whenever they were called on to execute 
any office. Vain provisions! ineffectual restrictions ! vile profanation of oaths ! 
miserable mockery of legislation ! if a bare majority of the voters in any one 
State may, on a real or supposed knowledge of the intent with which a law 
has been passed, declare themselves free from its operation — say here it gives 
too little, there too much, and operates unequally — here it suffers articles to 
be free that ought to be taxed, there it taxes those that ought to be free — in 
this case the proceeds are intended to be applied to purposes which we do 
not approve, in that, the amount raised is more than is wanted. Congress, it 
is true, are invested by the Constitution with the right of deciding these ques- 
tions according to their sound discretion. Congress is composed of the rep- 
resentatives of all the States, and of ail the people of all the States ; but ave, 
part of the people of one State, to whom the Constitution has given no power 
on the subject, from whom it has expressly taken it away — we, who have sol- 
emnly agreed that this Constitution shall be our law— v;e, most of whom have 
sworn to support it— ?i'e now abrogate this law, and swear, and force others 
to swear, that it shall not be obeyed — and we do this, not because Congress 
have no right to pass such laws; this we do not allege; but because they 
have passed them with improper views. They are unconstitutional from the 
motives of those who passed them, which w-e can never with certainty know, 
from their unequal operation ; although it is imppssible, from the nature of 
things, that they should be equal — and from the*^ disposition which we pre- 
sume may be made of their proceeds, although that disposition has not been 



9 

declared. This is the plain meaning of the ordinance in relation to laws 
which it abrogates for alleged unconstitutionality. But it does not stop 
there. It repeals, in express terms, an important part of the Constitution 
itself, and of laws passed to give it effect, which have never been alleged to 
be unconstitutional. The Constitution declares that the judicial powers of 
the Lfnited States extend to cases arising under the laws of the LFnited States, 
and that such laws, the Constitution and treaties shall be paramount to the 
State constitutions and laws. The judiciary act prescribes the mode by which 
the case may be brought before a court of the United States, by appeal, when 
a State tribunal shall decide against this provision of the Constitution. The 
ordinance declares there shall be no appeal ; makes the State laws paramount 
to the Constitution and laws of the United States; forces judges and jurors 
to swear that they will disregard their provisions ; and even makes it penal 
in a suitor to attempt relief by appeal. It further declares that it shall not 
be lawful for the authorities of the United States, or of that State, to enforce 
the payment of duties imposed by the revenue laws within its limits. 

Here is a law of the United States, not even pretended to be unconstitu- 
tional, repealed by the authority of a small majority of the voters of a single 
State. Here is a provision of the Constitution which is solemnly abrogated 
by the same authority. 

On such expositions and reasonings the ordinance grounds not only an 
assertion of the right to annul the laws of which it complains, but to enforce 
it by a threat of seceding from the Union, if any attempt is made to execute 
them. 

This right to secede is deduced from the nature of the Constitution, which, 
they say, is a compact between sovereign States, who have preserved their 
whole sovereignty, and, therefore, are subject to no superior ; that, because 
they made the compact, they can break it when, in their opinion, it has been 
departed from by the other States. Fallacious as this course of reasonino- is, 
it enlists State pride, and finds advocates in the honest prejudices of those 
who have not studied the nature of our government sufficiently to see the 
radical error on which it rests. 

The people of the United States formed the Constitution, acting through 
the State Legislatures in making the compact, to meet and discuss its pro- 
visions, and acting in separate conventions when they ratified those pro- 
visions; but the terms used in its construction, show it to be a government 
in which the people of all the States collectively are represented. We are 
one people in the choice of the President and Vice President. Here the States 
have no other agency than to direct the mode in which the votes shall be 
given. The candidates having the majority of all the votes are chosen. 
The electors of a majority of States may have given their votes for one can- 
didate, and yet another may be chosen. The people, then, and not the States, 
are represented in the executive branch. 

in the House of Representatives there is this difference, that the people of 
one State do not, as in the case of President and Vice President, all vote for 
the same officers. The people of all the States do not vote for all the mem- 
bers, each State electing only its own representatives. But this creates no 
material distinction. When chosen, they are all representatives of the 
United States, not representatives af the particular State from which they 
come. They are paid by the United States, not by the State ; nor are they 
accountable to it for any act done in the performance of their legislative 
functions; and however they may in practice, as it is their duty to do, con- 
sult and prefer the interests of their particular constituents when they come 
in conflict with any other partial or local interest, yet it is their first and 



10 

highest duty, as representatives of the United States, to promote the general 
good. 

The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government^ not a 
league; and whether it be formed by compact between the States, or in any 
other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which all the 
people are represented, which operates directly on the people individually, 
not upon the States ; they retained all the power they did not grant. But each 
State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly 
with the other States a single nation, cannot, from that period, possess any 
right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys 
the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which 
would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offence against 
the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the 
Union, is to say that the United States is not a nation ; because it would be 
a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection 
with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offence. 
Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the 
extremity of oppression ; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding 
the meaning of terms ; and can only be done through gross error, or to de- 
ceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they 
made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent on a failure. 

Because the Union was formed by compact, it is said the parties to that 
compact may, when they feel themselves aggrieved, depart from it ; but 
it is precisely because it is a compact that they cannot. A compact is an 
agreement or binding obligation. It may, by its terms, have a sanction or 
penalty for its breach, or it may not. If it contains no sanction, it may be 
broken with no other consequence than moral guilt : if it have a sanction, 
then the breach incurs the designated or implied penalty. A league between 
independent nations, generally, has no sanction other than a moral one ; or, 
if it should contain a penalty, as there is no common superior, it cannot be 
enforced. A government, on the contrary, always has a sanction, expressed. 
or implied ; and, in our case, it is both necessarily implied and expressly given. 
An attempt by force of arms to destroy a government, is an offence, by what- 
ever means the constitutional compact may have been formed ; and such 
government has the right, by the law of self-defence, to pass acts for punish- 
ing the offender, unless that right is modified, restrained or resumed, by the 
constitutional act. In our system, although it is modified in the case of 
treason, yet authority is expressly given to pass all laws necessary to carry 
its powers into effect, and under this grant provision has been made for punish- 
ing acts which obstruct the due administration of the laws. 

It would seem superfluous to add anything to show the nature of that union 
which connects us ; but as erroneous opinions on this subject are the founda- 
tion of doctrines the most destructive to our peace, I must give some further 
development to my views on this subject. No one, fellow-citizens, has a 
higher reverance for the reserved rights of the States, than the magistrate 
who now addresses you. No one would make greater personal sacrifices, or 
official exertions, to defend them from violation ; but equal care must be taken 
to prevent on their part an improper interference with, or resumption of the 
rights they have vested in the nation. The line has been so distinctly drawn 
as to avoid doubts in some cases of the exercise of power. Men of the best 
intentions and soundest views may differ in their construction of some parts 
of the Constitution ; but there are others on which dispassionate reflection 
can leave no doubt. Of this nature appears to be the assumed right of seces- 
sion. It rests, as we have seen, on the alleged undivided sovereignty of the 
States, and on their having formed in this sovereign capacity a compact which 



ii 

is called the Constitution, from which, because they made it, they have the 
right to secede. Both of these positions are erroneous, and some of the argu- 
ments to prove them so have been anticipated. 

The States severally have not retained their entire sovereignty. It has been 
shown that in becoming parts of a nation, not members of a league, they 
surrendered many of their essential parts of sovereignty. The right to make 
treaties — declare war — levy taxes — exercise exclusive judicial and legislative 
powers — were all of them functions of sovereign power. The States, then, 
for all these important purposes, were no longer sovereign. The allegiance 
of their citizens was tiansferred, in the first instance, to the government of 
the United States — they became American citizens, and owed obedience to the 
Constitution of the United States, and to laws made in conformity with the 
powers it vested in Congress. This last position has not been and cannot be 
denied. How then can that State be said to be sovereign and independent, 
whose citizens owe obedience to laws not made by it, and whose magistrates 
are sworn to disregard those laws when they come in conflict with those 
passed by another 1 What shows conclusively that the States cannot be said 
to have reserved an undivided sovereignty, is, that they expressly ceded the 
right to punish treason — not treason against their separate power — but treason 
against the United States. Treason is an offence against sovereignty ; and 
sovereignty must reside with the power to punish it. But the reserved rights 
of the States are not less sacred, because they have for their common interest 
made the general government the depository of these powers. 

The unity of our political character (as has been shown for another pur- 
pose) commenced with its very existence. Under the royal government we 
had no separate character — our opposition to its oppressions began as United 
Colonies. We were the United States under the confederation, and the name 
was perpetuated, and the Union rendered more perfect, by the federal Con- 
stitution. In none of these stages did we consider ourselves in any other 
light than as forming one nation. Treaties and alliances were made in the 
name of all. Troops were raised for the joint defence. How, then, with all 
these proofs that, under all changes of our position, we had, for designated 
purposes and with defined powers, created national governments — how is it, 
that the most perfect of those several modes of union should now be consid- 
ered as a mere league, that may be dissolved at pleasure ? It is from an 
abuse of terms. Compact is used as synonymous with league, although the 
true term is not employed, because it would at once show the fallacy of the 
reasoning. It would not do to say that our Constitution was only a league, 
but, it is labored to prove it a compact (which in one sense it is) and then to 
argue that as a league is a compact, every compact between nations must of 
course be a league, and that from such an engagement every sovereign power 
has a right to secede. But it has been shown that in this sense the States 
are not sovereign, and that even if they were, and the national Constitution 
had been formed by a compact, there would be no right in any one State to 
exonorate itself from its obligations. 

So obvious are the reasons which forbid this secession, that it is necessary 
only to allude to them. The Union was formed for the benefit of all. It was 
produced by mutual sacrifices of interests and opinions. Can those sacrifices 
be recalled! Can the States, who magnanimously surrendered their title to 
the territories of the west, recall the grant 1 Will the inhabitants of the in- 
land States agree to pay the duties that may be imposed without their assent, 
by those on the Atlantic or the Gulf, for their own benefit ? Shall there be 
a free port in one State, and onerous duties in another 1 No one believes that 
any right exists in a single State to involve all the others in these and count- 



12 

less other evils, contrary to the enarafrcments solemnly made. Every oiie* 
must see that the other States, in self-defence, must oppose it at all hazards. 

These are the alternatives that are presented by the convention ; a repeal' 
of all the acts for raising revenue, leaving the government without the means- 
of support, or an acquiescence in the dissolution of the UnioH by the seces" 
sion of one of its members. When the first was proposed, it was known that 
it could not be listened to for a moment. It was known, if force was applied 
to oppose the execution of the laws, that: it must be repelled by force— that 
Congress could not, without invofving itself in disgrace, and the country ir^ 
ruin, accede to the proposition ; and yet, if this is not done in S' given day, 
or if any attempt is made to execute the laws,, the Siate is, by tb« ordinance,, 
declared to be out of the Union. Tlie majority of a convention assembled 
for that purpose, have dictated these terms, or rather this rejection of all' 
terms, in the name of the peo-ple of South Carolina, It is true, that the Gov- 
ernor of the State speaks of the submission of their grievances to a eonvention' 
of all the States^ which, he says, they '^sincerely and anxiously seek and de- 
sire." Yet this obvious and constitutional mode of obtaining the sense of 
the other States, on the construction of the federal compact, and amending' 
it, if necessary, has never been attempted by those who have »?rged the State 
on this destructive xneasure. The State might have proposed" the call for a 
general convention, to the other States, and Congress, if a sufficient number 
of them concurred, must have called it. BtPt the first magistrate of South 
Carolina, when he expressed a hope- that, "on a review by Congress- and the* 
functionaries of the general government of the merks of the controversy,"^ 
such a convention will be accorded to them, nsust have kno\?n that ueither 
Congress nor any functionary of the general government has authority to call- 
such a convention,, unless it be demanded by two-thirds of the States. This- 
suggestion, then, is another i»istance e( the reckless inattention to the provi- 
sions of the Constitution with which this crisis has been madly hurried on j. 
or of the attempt to persuade the people that a constitutional remedy had been- 
sought and refused. If the Legislature of South Carolina "anxiously de- 
sired" a general convention to consider their complaints, why have they not 
made application for it in the way the Constitution points out ? The asser- 
tion- that they "earnestly seek" it, is completely negatived by the omission.- 

This, then, is tbe position in which- we stand. A small majority of the 
citizens of one State in the Union have elected delegates to a Stiate conyen- 
tion ,' that convention h^a ordained that all the revenue laws of the United 
States m-Hst be repealed, or that they are no longer a member of the Union, 
The Governor of that State has recommended to the Legislature the raising* 
®^f an army to carry the secession into eti^ct, and that he may be empowered 
to give clearances to vessels in the name of the State. No act of violent 
opposition! to the laws has yet been committed, but such a state of things is* 
hourly apprehended ; and it is the intent of this instrument to proclaim not 
only that the duty imposed on me by the Constitution, '-'to take care that the 
laws be faithfully executed, "^ shall be performed to the extent of the powers- 
already vested in me by law, or of such other as the wisdom of Congress 
shall devise and entrust to me for that purpose, but to warn the citizens of 
South Carolina who have been deluded into an opposition to the laws, of the 
danger they will incur by obedience to she illegal and disorganizing ordinance- 
of the convention ; to sxhort those who have refused to support it to perss- 
vers in their determination to uphold the Constitution and laws of their 
country; and to point out to all the perilous siti?ation into which the good 
people of that State have been led, and that the course they are urged to- 
pursue is one o-f ruin and disgrace to the very State whose- rights- they affect 
lo supports 



13 

Fellow-citizens of my native State, Jet me not only admonish you, as the 
■iirst magistrate of our common couiuiy, not to incur the penalty of its laws, 
(but use the influence that a father would over his children whom he saw 
rushing to certain ruin. In that paternal language, with tha* paternal" feel- 
ing, let me tell yeu, my countrymen, that you are deluded by men who are 
•either deceived themselves, or wish to deceive you. Mark under what pre- 
tences you have been led on to the brink of insurrection and treason on which 
you stand. First, a diminution of the value of your staple commodity, low- 
ered by over production in other quarters, and the consequent diminution in 
the value of your lands, were the sole effect of the tariff laws. The effect 
■of those laws is confessedly injurious; but the evil was greatly exaggerated 
by the unfounded theory you were taught to believe, that its burdens were 
in proportion to your -exports, not to your consumption of imported articles. 
Your pride was roused by the assertion that a submission to those laws was 
a state of v«ssalage, and that resistance to them was equal, in patriotic merit, 
to the opposition our fathers offered to the oppressive laws of Great Britain. 
You were told that this opposition might be peaceably, might be constitution-, 
ally made^ that you might enjoy all the advantages of the Union, and bear 
■none of its burdens, 

Eloquent appeals to your passions, to your State pride, to your native courage, 
to your sense of real injury, were used to prepare you for the period when the 
mask which concealed the hideous features of disunion should be torn off. It 
fell, and you were made to look with complacency on objects which, not long 
since, yo« would have regarded with horror. Look back at the arts which 
have brought you to this state — look forward to the consequences to which it 
must inevitably lead. Look back to what was first told you as an inducement 
to enter into this dangerous course. The great political truth was repeated 
to you, that you had the revolutionary right of resisting all laws that were 
palpably unconstitutional and intolerably oppressive — it was added that the 
right to KuUify a law rested on the same principle, but that It was a peacea- 
ble remedy ! This character which was given to it made you receive with 
too much confidence the assertions that were made of the unconstitutionality 
of the law and its oppressive effects- Mark, my fellow-citizens, that, by the 
admission of your leaders, the unconstitutionality must be palpable, or it will 
not justify either resistance or nullification! What is the meaning of the 
word palpable, m the sense in which it is here used 1 — that which is apparent 
to every one; that which no man of ordinary intellect will fail to perceive. 
Is the unconstitutionality of these laws of that description 1 Let those among 
your leaders who once approved and advocated the principle of protective 
duties, answer the question; and let them choose whether they will be con- 
sidered as incapable, then, of perceiving that which must have been apparent 
to every man of common understanding, or as imposing on your confidence 
and endeavoring to mislead you now. 

In either case they are unsafe guides in the perilous path they urge you to 
tread. Ponder well on this circumstance, and you will know how to appre- 
ciate the exaggerated language they address to you. They are not cham- 
pions of liberty, emulating the fa«ie of our revolutionary fathers ; nor are you 
an oppressed people, contending, as they repeat to you, against worse than 
colonial vassalage. You are free members of a flourishing and happy Union.' 
There is no settled design to oppress you. You have indeed felt the unequal 
operation of laws which may have been unwisely, not unconstitutionally, 
passed ; but that inequality must necessarily be removed. At the very mo- 
ment when you were madly urged on the unfortunate course you have begun, 
a change in public opinion had commenced. The nearly approaching pay- 
ment .of the public debt, and the consequent necessity of a diminution of 



14 

duties, had already produced a considerable reduction, and that too on some 

Riiniics oi geiierdi cuiisuinpuoa m your cjtaie. me importance ot this chaag© 
was understood, and you were authoritatively told that no further alleviation 
of your burdens was to be expected, at the very time when the condition of 
the country imperiously demanded such a modification of the duties as should 
reduce them to a just and equitable scale. But, as if apprehensive of the 
effect of this change in allaying your discontents, you were precipitated into 
the fearful state in which you now find yourselves. 

1 have urged you to look back to the means that were used to hurry you 
on to the position you have now assumed, and forward to the consequences 
it will produce. Something more is necessary. Contemplate the condition 
of that country of which you still form an important part ! — consider its gov- 
ernment, united in one bond of common interests and general protection so 
many different States — giving to all their inhabitants the proud title of 
American citizens — protecting their commerce — securing their literature and 
their arts — facilitating their intercommunication, defending their frontiers^ — . 
and making their name respected in the remotest parts of the earth f Con- 
sider the extent of its territory, its increasing and happy population, its 
advance in arts which render life agreeable, and the sciences which elevate 
the mind ! See education spreading the lights of religion, humanity and 
general information into every cottage in this wide extent of our territories 
and States ! Behold it as the asylum where the wretched and the oppressed 
find a refuge and support ! Look on this picture of happiness and honor, and 
say, we, too, are citizens of America ; Carolina is one of these proud States; 
her arms have defended — her best blood has cemented — this happy Union [ 
And then add, if you can, without horror and remorse, this happy Union we 
will dissolve — this picture of peace and prosperity we will deface — this free 
intercourse we will interrupt — these fertile fields we will deluge with blood — 
the protection of that glorious flag we renounce — the very name of Americans 
we discard. And for what, mistaken men ! for what do you throw away 
these inestimable blessings — for what would you exchange your share in the 
advantages and honor of a Union 1 For the dream of a separate indepen- 
dence, a dream interrupted by bloody conflicts with your neighbors, and a 
vile dependence on a foreign power. If your leaders could succeed in estab- 
lishing a separation, what would be your situation 1 Are you united at home 
— are you free from the apprehension of civil discord, with all its fearful con- 
sequences 1 Do our neighboring republics, every day suffering some new revo- 
lution, or contending with some new insurrection — do they excite your envy T 
But the dictates of a high duty oblige me solemnly to announce that you can- 
not succeed. The laws of the United States must be executed. I have na 
discretionary power on the subject — my duty is emphatieally pronounced ia 
the Constitution. Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent 
their execution, deceived you — they could not have been deceived themselves. 
They know that a forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution of 
the laws, and they know that such opposition must be repelled. Their object 
is disunion ; but be not deceived by names ; disunion, by armed force is treason. 
Are you really readjf to incur its guilt'? If you are, on the heads of the in- 
stigators of the act be the dreadful consequences — on their heads be the dis- 
honor, but on yours may fall the punishment — on your unhappy State will in- 
evitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the government of your 
country. It cannot accede to the mad project of disunion, of which you 
would be the first victims — its first magistrate cannot^ if he would avoid the 
performance of his duty — the consequence must be fearful for you, distressing 
to your fellow-citizens here, and to the friends of good government through- 
out the world. Its enemies have beheld our prosperity with a vexation they 



15 

could not conceal — it was a standing refutation of their slavish doctrines, and 
they will point to our discord with the triumph of malignant joy. It is yet 
in your power to disappoint them. There is yet time to show that the descend- 
ants of the Pinckneys, the Sumters, the Kutledges, and of the thousand other 
names which adorn the pages of your Revolutionary history, will not abandon 
that Union, to support which so many of them fought and bled and died. 1 
adjure you, as you honor their memory — as you love the cause of freedom, 
to which they dedicated their lives — as you prize the peace of your country, 
the lives of its best citizens and your own fair fame, to retrace your steps. 
Snatch from the archives of your State the disorganizing edict of its conven- 
tion — bid its members to re-assemble and promulgate the decided expressions 
of your will to remain in the path which alone can conduct you to safety, 
prosperity and honor — tell them that, compared to disunion, all other evils 
are light, because that brings with it an accumulation of all — declare that 
you will never take the field unless the star-spangled banner of your country 
shall float over you — that you will not be stigmatized when dead, and dis- 
honored and scorned while you live, as the authors of the first attack on the 
Constitution of your country! — its destroyers you cannot be. You may dis- 
turb its peace — you may interrupt the course of its prosperity — you may 
cloud its reputation for stability — but its tranquility will be restored ; its pros- 
perity will return ; and the stain upon its national character will be trans- 
ferred, and remain an eternal blot on the memory of those who caused the 
disorder. 

Fellow citizens of the United States ! The threat of unhallowed disunion — 
the names of those, once respected, by whom it is uttered — the array of 
military force to support it — denote the approach of a crisis in our affairs 
on which the continuance of our unexampled prosperity, our political existence 
and perhaps that of all free governments, may depend. The conjuncture 
demanded a free, a full and explicit enunciation not only of my intentions, 
but of my principles of action ; and as the claim was asserted of a right by 
a State to annul the laws of the Union, and even to secede from it at plea- 
sure, a frank exposition of my opinions in relation to the origin and form of 
our government, and the construction I give to the instrument by which it 
was created, seemed to be proper. Having the fullest confidence in the just- 
ness of the legal and constitutional opinion of my duties which has been 
expressed, I rely with equal confidence on your undivided support in my 
determination to execute the laws — to preserve the Union by ail constitutional 
means — to arrest, if possible, by moderate but firm measures, the necessity of 
a recourse to force; and if it be the will of heaven that the recurrence of its 
primeval curse on man for the shedding of a brother's blood should fall upon 
our land, that it be not called down by any offensive act on the part of the 
United States. 

Fellow citizens ! The momentous case is before you. On your undivided 
support of your government depends the decision of the great question it 
involves, whether your sacred Union will be preserved, and the blessing it 
secures to us as one people shall be perpetuated. No one can doubt that the 
unanimity with which that decision will be expressed, will be such as to 
inspire new confidence in republican institutions, and that the prudence, the 
wisdom and the courage which it will bring to their defence, will transmit 
them unimpaired and invigorated to our children. 

May the great Kuler of nations grant that the signal blessings with which 
he has favored ours may not, by the madness of party or personal ambition, 
be disregarded and lost; and may His wise Providence bring those who have 
produced this crisis, to see the folly before they feel the misery of civil 
strife ; and inspire a returning veneration for that Union which, if we may 



16 

dare to penetrate his designs, he has chosen as the only means of attaining 
the high destinies to which we may reasonably aspire. 

In testimony whereof, 1 have caused the seal of the United States to be 
Hereunto affixed, having signed the same with my hand. 

Done at the city of Washington, this tenth day of December, in the year 
of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, and of the inde- 
pendence of the United States the fifty-seventh. 

ANDKEW JACKSON. 
By the President : 

Edw. Livingston, Secretary of State. 

COL. TATE'S EULOGY ON GEN. JACKSON. 

On the conclusion of the reading of Jackson's proclamation to the people 
of South Carolina, Mr. Tate (Columbia) was called upon for a few remarks, 
to which he responded as follows : 

Mr. Speaker : — 1 concur with the gentlemen to whose kindness I am indebted 
For the courtesy of the House, that a brief reference, at least, is due the name 
md fame of the departed patriot and statesman whose living admonition and 
jndying legacy we have just been called upon to thus publicly celebrate. 

Near and dear to the American people is the name of Andrew Jackson. 
We do well to-day to turn aside for an hour from the legitimate business of 
legislation, to hear the admonitions and warnings of one who, though dead, 
^et speaketh. May we long treasure his wise counsels, and practice his 
wholesome precepts. 

Mr. Speaker, 1 am clearly of the opinion that, had we observed the teach- 
ngs of the sterling "Sage of the Hermitage," to which we have just been 
islening, our beloved country would to-day have been at peace. I agree 
mth my patriotic friend from Philadelphia, (the Hon. Mr. Dennis,) who re- 
Tiarked, in his able defence of Gen. Jackson, upon the thirteenth of last Febru- 
iry, when 1 had the honor of offering the resolution inviting this celebration, 
;hat Andrew Jackson was the second saviour of his country. Washington 
le truly denominated the first, and Jackson the second ; in which sentiment 
[ cordially concur, and have no doubt that it commends itself to the judgment 
)f every patriot in the land. Such sentiments as those enunciated in the 
message of General Jackson are full of meaning and admonition, and must 
be especially refreshing to the loyal citizen in these times of treason and 
rebellion. We hail them as an oasis in the moral waste of this degenerate 
world. The best energies of his life, and the most powerful efforts of his 
idministration, were devoted to the suppression of rebellion and the defence 
3f the Constitution. Obedience to the law and deference to the Union was 
the watch-word of Andrew Jackson. It was he who fearlessly declared, 
•'the Federal Union — it must be preserved;" and were he to-day upon the 
theatre of action, would no doubt signalize that determination of his purpose 
with an emphatic "by the Eternal." Sir, I too wish we had such a man as 
Andrew Jackson. 

Mr. Speaker, thanking Divine Providence, in the name of the people of 
Pennsylvania, and through them of the world, for the two first named bene- 
factors of our race, in the persons of Washington and Jackson, may we not 
confidently trust, that in the munificence of the same unerring wisdom. He 
has raised up, in the person of General M'Clellan, the third " Saviour of our 
country." 



17 

I am not yet done with Andrew Jackson. He suppressed nullification m 
1832, and, if now livinf;:, would \v\'^e >'i\i rebellion in 18G2. His motto would 
now be that of all his followers. " The Constilu'don as it is — the Union as 
it was." 

And now, Mr. Speaker, a word in relation to our beloved, bleeding, suffer- 
ing and distracted country. The fair temple of our liberties has been ruth- 
lessly assailed by traitorous hands, and the sacred tombs of Mount Vernon, 
Monticel/o and the Hermitage — the impcrisliable heritage of our fathers and 
our fathers' God — have been desecrated by treason's unholy ambition. Such 
violators of law and humanity, I hold, would — 

'< Fillige the palace of the King of Kings, 
And clip the gilding from an angel's wings, 
AVould cheat the living — wrong the dead, 
And rob the orphan of its crust of bread." 

In conclusion, may we not here, as the representatives of one branch of 
the Legislature, cangratulate the loyal people of the whole country upon the 
prospects of an early and enduring peace. A peace that will comprehend the 
honor of the thirty-four stars of the Union. 15lack rebellion and treason will 
then be banished from the land never again to disgrace our country's fair 
escutcheon. 

For them I have neither mercy or sympathy. Men who desert the Union, 
and attempt to destroy or mar its beauty, have no claim to its protection and 
immunities, but deserve its unlimited execrations. Of such, truthfully has 
the poet said : 

'•'Perish the hand that woald destroy 

The temple of our sires, 
Perish the heart that hopes for joy 

In its consuming (ires ! 
Let not the monster he forgot, 

Who dares to light the dame ; 
But curse hiai with a traitor's lot, 

And with a traitors name." 



W46 



.^^,r>^ 



- ' . V^ -P- "* -' c^ 




W' ^^ 













Cr r. o " " • 










*«>,'T^\/ %.-^-'%o' **,''!^\/ "c 



V ^^'\ ^ 












•* X*'^"^'V X*'"^"^-',**^' %'^'-\o'' ~'^< 



^- '^ -'^m".. \</ .-Jfe'-. %,^* .-^^'^ 










